Posted under General
So, what is our stance on things published in paper magazines such as megami regarding their official art status? I think we agreed at one point that being published in a real magazine automatically makes you official, but there seem to be 52 pages of megami -official_art alone. Should I go ahead and mass edit them? Should that be implicated perhaps?
Updated by jxh2154
I'd say anything published directly by the producer or studio would count as official_art. I'm not too familiar with megami magazine, but so long as everything they publish comes from an official source and isn't simply fan-art, I'd say an implication would have merit.
Implicating Megami as official art universally seems like it could be a little unwise.
"Anything in a magazine is official" is bit of a leap from "Artwork by the company/artist of the series" afterall.
Takeuchi Takashi's Nanoha art in Megami comes to mind as just one example - Megami might be the de facto home of Nanoha but is art by someone with no ties to the series 'official'?
I'm sure you'd find more examples of art by unrelated artists by scanning through Megami pictures with -official_art on, but artist tagging of Megami art is kind of scattershot.
Seem said:
"Anything in a magazine is official" is bit of a leap from "Artwork by the company/artist of the series" afterall.Takeuchi Takashi's Nanoha art in Megami comes to mind as just one example - Megami might be the de facto home of Nanoha but is art by someone with no ties to the series 'official'?
That answers what I was indirectly asking. If there is fan-art published in the magazine that is unsanctioned by the original studio, then an implication wouldn't be the way to go.
However, if the studio hired / endorsed a 3rd party to draw their work and published it, I'd say that still counts as official_art.
The girl's_avenue section is usually original.
Seem said:
Takeuchi Takashi's Nanoha art in Megami comes to mind as just one example - Megami might be the de facto home of Nanoha but is art by someone with no ties to the series 'official'?I'm sure you'd find more examples of art by unrelated artists by scanning through Megami pictures with -official_art on, but artist tagging of Megami art is kind of scattershot.
That's pretty much my question: do we consider the fact that someone publishing a big-name paper magazine (and thus required to pay attention to copyrights and such) prints a picture and attaches a nameplate to it as an indication of officialness? The nameplates are in fact the core point here; all the Megami artwork bears titles and copyright notices, which I think is as official as it gets.
parasol said:
The girl's_avenue section is usually original.
Original characters sort of by definition can't be official art since there is no entity to make them official except the author that drew them. For that reason alone, I'd say we can't implicate, though the majority of canon images probably deserve it.
In cases like Takeuchi Takashi's Nanoha art, was the publishing of that art sanctioned by the producers of the Nanoha anime / manga? If so, it should qualify; if not, then it shouldn't.
Seem raises the point that came to mind for me. Girl's Avenue is a good point too.
On the other hand the below is entirely reasonable as well:
Shinjidude said: In cases like Takeuchi Takashi's Nanoha art, was the publishing of that art sanctioned by the producers of the Nanoha anime / manga? If so, it should qualify; if not, then it shouldn't.
I can't see any copyrighted character appearing in Megami without the license holder's consent, which would essentially make it all official. And they're generally used to draw attention to DVD/BD releases as well, so it's really a promotional piece.
It sounds like we can't implicate but tagging official_art on most of the non-original might not be out of line. The question is really more a matter of how we want to define official_art vis a vis who the artist works for or doesn't work for.
I think it should be tagged official_art when it's clear that the anime studio artists did the art, which is the case for nearly all the Megami scans I've seen thus far.
If there's an exception such as the above, an implication is out of the question, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't tag the majority of the Megami scans on Danbooru as official_art.
Shinjidude said:
Original characters sort of by definition can't be official art since there is no entity to make them official except the author that drew them. For that reason alone, I'd say we can't implicate, though the majority of canon images probably deserve it.
There's another solution. Simply make sure images with girl's avenue don't have megami, note that rule and the reason in the wiki, and then implicate megami but not girl's avenue.
OTOH, even if we get some original characters mistagged as official_art, it won't be terribly harmful, as you're pretty unlikely to search for official_art as such; you'd rather couple it with a copyright. And then the problem doesn't exist.
Wouldn't we have an issue with photoshopped Megami scans? (Not detexted.)
E.g. post #477689
Or would these still "technically" fall under official art?
Jigsy said: Wouldn't we have an issue with photoshopped Megami scans? (Not detexted.)
E.g. post #477689
Or would these still "technically" fall under official art?
They'd technically fall under "shouldn't be approved", but...
I don't think I'd add official_art if someone else screwed with it (which removing characters certainly is). Especially if the proper parent is available, and and is itself tagged official_art.
